Friday, March 16, 2012

California
public schools are in crisis- and they are getting worse. This is a direct
result of massive budget cuts imposed by the legislature and the governor in
the last four years. Total per
pupil expenditure is down by over $1,000 per student. The result- massive class
size increases. Your students are
in often classes too large for learning. Supplementary services such as tutoring and art classes have
been eliminated. Over 14,000
teachers have been dismissed, and thousands more face lay offs this fall.

California
schools are now 47th. in the nation in per pupil expenditure and 49th
in class size. Our low achievement
scores on national tests reflect this severe underfunding.

Of
course the economic crisis of 2007 to the present made matters worse. The state took in some $30 billion less
in taxes and thus had less to send to the schools. School budgets have been cut by some $10 billion. K-12 education receives about 40% of the
California budget. Thus any
decline in the state budget leads directly to cuts in school services.

The
question for the corporate agenda, such as the Chamber of Commerce is can the
economy prosper with a poorly educated work force. California grew and prospered from 1970- 1994 based upon a
well educated work force. Then, in
the 1994-2008 period over $10 billion of tax cuts were passed – making the
current crisis much worse.
California suffers from a decade of disinvestment. Today, instead of following the education approach,
conservative anti tax forces have imposed an Mississippi approach on
California.

Now
we are faced with a choice. Shall
we raise taxes and fund the schools, or shall we continue the current practice
of cut, cut, cut. In the fall
election we will be faced with at least three choices. Continue as is, or choose between two
tax proposals. If the anti tax
forces have their way and we do not pass new taxes the effects on the schools
will be devastating – as will be effects on health clinics and local services.

One
proposal will be the new combination of the Governor’s tax proposal as merged
with the Millionaires tax proposal.
This merger is a modest proposal.
Sales tax would go up ¼ cent ( as opposed to the ½ cent originally
proposed by the governor) and the taxes of the very well off would be
increased. In the Millionaires tax
this increase would have been starting at one million per year, in the merged
proposal there would be higher taxes in steps for persons receiving $250,000
for singles and $500,000 for couples.
Thus, it is no longer a millionaires tax, it is an increase for the well
off. By the way, some 93% of
all the recent wealth generated in the economy has gone to this top 4% of the wealthy. They are doing just fine.

There
are other aspects of this merged proposal that will be described and developed
in future posts.

The
merged proposal – it doesn’t yet have a name- would not restore the schools to
their 1980’s level of funding. It
would only reduce the bleeding.
Things would not get worse next year. California would still rank 47th. out of the 50
states in per pupil spending.

Sacramento
Bee columnist Dan Walters, a frequent voice of the anti tax crowd, calls this a
“soak the rich” proposal. That is a
slogan to mobilize the right wing.
It is not an analysis.
I am confident that serious analysis will follow. The Bee editorial board complains that
this form of taxation will not end the volatility of tax collections – an
accurate criticism. However, you
can’t ask that emergency measures achieve all of your goals. The volatility issue is real and needs
to be addressed in the tax code. For
example, we could re-establish the vehicle license fee, or we could re-evaluate
commercial property regularly for property taxes. Both would reduce the volatility of tax receipts. A subsequent post will respond to their
pension arguments.

There
are some weaknesses in the governor’s proposal. For now, the
problem is to qualify this new initiative. This will require over 800,000 valid voter signatures and a
fall campaign.